Documents setting out the establishment of the ECCU from States of Jersey PoliceDocuments setting out the establishment of the ECCU from States of Jersey Police
Produced by the Freedom of Information officeAuthored by States of Jersey Police and published on
11 September 2025.Prepared internally, no external costs.
Request 735506941
Please can you provide copies of any documents setting out the legal basis for the establishment of the ECCU [Economic Crime and Confiscation Unit] and for vesting in the ECCU legal jurisdiction for carrying out criminal investigations, which is otherwise the responsibility of the States of Jersey Police (SOJP).
It is thought likely that: (a) the Department for the Economy; (b) Justice and Home Affairs; and (c) the States of Jersey Police, should have relevant information.
There is a clear public interest in such information being released, not least because of the considerable amount of public funds spent on (and by) the ECCU.
Response
The States of Jersey Police (SoJP) has partially applied Article 31 (Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer) and Article 42(a) (prevention, detection or investigation of crime) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011.
Notwithstanding the above, the following recorded information is considered suitable for release;
As the Attorney General's powers to investigate financial crime are limited, this [Data Sharing] Agreement is underpinned by both parties' expectation that any person appointed as an ECCU investigator by the LOD will be sufficiently qualified and experienced to be capable of being designated as an “investigating officer" by the Chief Officer of SoJP pursuant to Article 26 and Schedule 2 to the SOJPF Law [States of Jersey Police Force Jersey Law 2012].
Articles applied
Article 31 - Advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or a Law Officer
Information is qualified exempt information if it is or relates to the provision of advice by the Bailiff, Deputy Bailiff or the Attorney General or the Solicitor General.
Public interest test
As Article 31 is a class-based qualified exemption, there is a requirement to undertake a public interest test.
Article 31 of the FOI Law recognises the longstanding constitutional convention that SoJP does not reveal whether Law Officers have or have not advised on a particular issue, or the content of any such advice. The underlying purpose of this confidentiality is to protect fully informed decision making by allowing police officers to seek legal advice in private, without fear of any adverse inferences being drawn from either the content of the advice or the fact that it was sought. It ensures that officers are neither discouraged from seeking advice in appropriate cases, nor pressured to seek advice in inappropriate cases. The request for information about whether or not advice was sought or will be sought falls within the Article 31 exemption.
Article 42 - Law enforcement
Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice –
(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere;
As Article 42(a) is a prejudice-based qualified exemption, there is a requirement to undertake a prejudice test as well as a public interest test.
Prejudice test
Further to the information disclosed above, additional material has been identified which offers greater insight into the nature of the relationship between SoJP and ECCU. It is assessed that the disclosure of this material would be likely to prejudice the conduct of ongoing investigations and may also compromise the integrity of future investigative processes.
Public Interest Test
While there is a general public interest in promoting transparency and accountability in the operations of public authorities, it is considered that, in this instance, the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the identified material outweighs the interest in disclosure.
The material in question provides detailed insight into the working relationship between SoJP and ECCU. Disclosure of this information would likely prejudice the effectiveness of ongoing investigations and could compromise future investigative processes. It may also risk undermining the operational integrity and independence of law enforcement and prosecutorial functions.
Furthermore, disclosure could erode trust between agencies, discourage the free and frank exchange of information, and potentially deter cooperation in sensitive matters. These outcomes would not serve the public interest and could have long-term implications for the administration of justice.
On balance, it is therefore concluded that the public interest favours non-disclosure of the material.
Internal Review Request
I am writing to request an internal review of the above-referenced response of the States of Jersey Police (SOJP).
The public interest in the release of information relating to the legal basis (or otherwise) for the Economic Crime and Confiscation Unit (ECCU) – which is part of the Law Officers’ Department, not the SOJP - carrying out criminal investigations is overwhelming.
The limited information released by the SOJP to date confirms that “the Attorney General’s powers to investigate financial crime are limited”.
Notwithstanding this fact, the Attorney General has spent (and is continuing to spend) very significant public funds establishing and maintaining his own team of investigators within a unit referred to as the ECCU.
The establishment of the ECCU was not approved by the States Assembly.
It is not clear, therefore, what the legal basis is (if any) for the Attorney General spending public funds establishing a unit for carrying out his own criminal investigations.
The public is entitled to know what the legal basis (if any) for the ECCU and its expenditure of public funds is, given that the States Assembly has passed legislation giving the SOJP the powers and responsibility for investigating crime. The public interest is particularly strong in circumstances where the SOJP is itself facing “continuing financial pressures, which pose significant risks to both resourcing and the wellbeing of officers and staff” (see the SOJP’s Annual Report 2024) and there are legitimate questions to answer about the allocation of resources to the Law Officers' Department, to carry out functions properly reserved for the SOJP.
The Law Officers’ Department is responsible for providing the independent public prosecution service for the Island.
As the Law Officers’ Department is now also investigating crime, it appears that investigative and prosecutorial functions are being carried out by the same body, without the approval of the States Assembly.
If the information withheld by the SOJP reveals that there is in fact, as appears may case, no legal basis for the ECCU carrying out criminal investigations, there is a strong public interest in this information being disclosed.
Given that the Attorney General is responsible for the ECCU, it is troubling that the SOJP has sought to rely on an exemption relating to advice from the Attorney General to withhold information. Article 31 is not an absolute exemption; it issubject to a public interest test and, in circumstances where the information relates to the legal basis (or otherwise) of the Attorney General’s own actions, there is a strong public interest in overriding the confidentiality that may normally attach to his advice. Otherwise, Article 31 could be used to cover-up information about instances where the Law Officers act without proper legal authority.
The SOJP has also withheld information about the legal basis of ECCU on the basis that it would be likely to prejudice the conduct of ongoing investigations. It is difficult to see how information about the legal basis of the ECCU would be likely to prejudice ongoing investigations, unless that information reveals that the ECCU has and/or is operating without a proper legal basis. In such a case, the public interest in revealing that fact must outweigh the public interest in withholding the information. There can be no public interest in investigations that are carried out without a proper legal basis, as such investigations would undermine the rule of law and there is a strong public interest in upholding the rule of law.
To the extent the withheld information relates to specific identifiable cases, the internal review panel may consider whether redaction could be used so that some, but not all, of the information is released.
I should be grateful if you could please confirm receipt of this request and ensure that it is given prompt attention.
Internal Review Response
This internal review has been conducted by an official of appropriate seniority who has not been involved in the original decision. As part of their review, they will be expected to understand the reasons behind the original response, impartially determine whether the response should be revised, and how so, considering the request and the information held, any relevant exemptions, or other relevant matters under the Law.
The Internal Reviewer was asked to review the original response and confirm the following:
Does the FOI request relate to a body to which the Law applies, or information held by a body covered by the Law?
Answer – Yes
If the answer is no, all the other questions are not applicable.
Further questions if above is a yes:
i. Was the right information searched for and reviewed?
ii. Was the information supplied appropriately?
iii. Was information appropriately withheld in accordance with the articles applied and
were the public interest test/ prejudice test properly applied?
Having considered all relevant information available, the Internal Reviewer upheld the decision.
For information, ECCU investigations are wholly independent of States of Jersey Police.
gov.je